A Good Laugh

[Fox Creek Kid]

Visited the Texas Ranger Museum in Waco right before the 4th of July and found this placard hilariously ignorant.   




Yep, that old POS '66 repeater was no match for a slow loading single shot in a battle with hostiles!! 

[Trailrider]

Well, the Army made a similar decision, albeit colored by budgetary considerations, to adopt the various Trapdoor Springfields. One factor was the mistaken idea that long range capability of the .50-70 and, later, the .45-70, was a better choice for the Western planes, even over the Spencer Carbine and the Henry/'66/'73 repeaters. Another was the also mistaken idea that troops would waste ammo with a reapeater. That concept followed all the way through the M1903 Springfield, with its magazine cutoff!

Of course, nowadays, we have a reverse controversy over the utility of the M16/M4 at longer ranges than, say, the M14 or even the AK47/54/AKM. Even going from the 5.56mm to, say a 6.8mm round, isn't going anywhere in light of budgetary considerations, inspite of poorer performance of the 5.56 in Afghanistan. Sounds like what Gen. MacArthur decreed for the M-1 Rifle (Garand) when it was first developed for a .276 cartridge. As Army Chief of Staff, MacA stated we had too much .30-06 ammo in the inventory, and too many M1903's and M1917's, machine guns, etc., chambered in .30-06.  The more things change, the more they stay the same!

[Coffinmaker]

The over riding consideration, is not to pick a fight when there are more of "them" than you have bullets.  As aptly demonstrated by Gen George Armstrong (I don't need Gattling guns) Custer.

Coffinmaker

[pony express]

Trailrider, it seems the Army keeps making the same mistake, trying to make one gun fill all roles. M-16/M-4 doesn't have enough reach for lots of the fights in Afghanistan, but then M-14s aren't the best for house clearing. But then the supply people wouldn't like having 2-3 different weapons systems in each platoon.

[Trailrider]

Trailrider, it seems the Army keeps making the same mistake, trying to make one gun fill all roles. M-16/M-4 doesn't have enough reach for lots of the fights in Afghanistan, but then M-14s aren't the best for house clearing. But then the supply people wouldn't like having 2-3 different weapons systems in each platoon.

Very true. However most of the logistics/supply types are in the rear with the gear (REMF's), and don't have their "six o'clocks" on the line. I'm not a combat veteran (in spite of the fact that they called the Minuteman I targeting teams "Combat Targeting Teams"), but have talked with a bunch of folks who were under fire in WWII, Korea, 'Nam, etc. Some troops, in spite of being weighted down with 60+ lb. packs, elected to carry a different weapon. For example, some snipers packed an M4 in addition to their bolt-action or other type sniper rifle for use in "as applicable" situations. When it comes right down to it, apparently budgetary consideration trumps the welfare and effectiveness of our troops!    (Oh, I know...logistics f---ups can present problems, such as when the cavalry troops with Schofields were sent .45 LC cartridges in the middle of a firefight!  )  (Big sigh!)

[pony express]

I haven't seen it, but Drydock was telling me about a video he watched online, was made by some embedded reporters that went on a patrol in Afghanistan. Patrol came under fire from "snipers", that were out of range of their M4s. We both surmised that the reason they had nothing other than the M-4s and SAW, was because of the reporters....maybe without the media, they might have had some "unofficial" armament. Anyway, after several were wounded, they finally got either air support, or maybe artillery or mortars(can't remember exactly) and finally put their snipers out of action, turned out to be a couple of Afghans with Lee-Enfields, firing leftover WW2 ammo, at something over 600 yards. Maybe a couple of designated marksmen with M-14s might have made a difference?

[matt45]

     I tend to regard that as not quite the case.  A SAW has pretty good penetration @ 600 meters.  Of course, other factors can play a role, and I haven't seen the clip in question.
     I didn't serve in Afganistan, but was in Iraq and other places (1982- 2004).  Dam few of us ever packed more that one weapon, simply because of weight.  In Iraq, we had several Barrets that we (if memory serves) never used because they were too bulky.  I'll confess to carrying a small J-frame in my pocket, but I was often in places I needed to appear unarmed.
     So back to the original point, the classic example of firepower vs. penetration from the age of our beloved 16 shooter (and its improved model) is the Battle of Plevna.